>> Is the monosyllable "Pak" not perceived as an epithet?
>>
>> Doug
ulhas> No. 'Pakis' is an epithet. Bush used it few days ago.
Well, since it came up:
Bush's Racist Slur
by Kendall CLARK and Bijan PARSIA
Thursday, 10 January 2002
Fresh from yet another multiweek vacation, President Bush turned
his attention to the very dangerous India-Pakistan
conflict. Speaking to reporters about the deteriorating regional
conflict on Monday, 7 January, President Bush said,
I don't believe the situation is defused yet, but I do believe
there is a way to do so, and we are working hard to convince both
the Indians and the Pakis there's a way to deal with their problems
without going to war.
The obvious and immediate response is to wonder how much worse he
wants the situation to become. Using a well-known ethnic slur to
describe one side of the conflict is unlikely to defuse anything.
Surely any other modern American president, each one of whom has
been very less verbally inept than Bush, would have been taken, had
he said the same or similar, to be signaling an American preference
for the side not slurred. Given the boundless, miasmic fog of
verbal expression which Bush inhabits, one might conclude that it
was merely a slip, of tongue or brain, and not worth further
thought.
Both AP and Reuters wire reports of the incident include curious
characterizations -- respectively: "The term 'Pakis' is considered
by many Pakistanis, particularly in Great Britain, to be
offensive"; and "Most Americans are unaware of the sensitivity of
the term. In Britain, however, it is considered an ethnic slur
toward Pakistanis who emigrated there in large numbers in the 1960s
and '70s" -- of the provenance and history of the term, as if the
harm were to be mitigated by claims about linguistic obscurity.
And, generally, supporters of the president have defended his use
of the slur by the same tactic: it's not problematic because most
Americans are unaware that "Paki" is offensive.
This defense is wholly inadequate: it misleads and is irrelevant.
First, the term is not new, and while its origin is British, that
is a local usage of rather universal reach -- the British media's
global spread is second only to that of US media. And, as Bush
likes to say, when it suits him and his interests, the US and UK
are culturally very close. One of the earliest examples occurred in
the Guardian, in 1964, and continually in British media throughout
the 60s and 70s. It occurred in US media very early as well,
specifically in a racist context -- Charlottesville, Virginia's
Daily Progress reported, in 1972 (!), on racial violence against
Asian immigrants, which was (and is still) termed
"Paki-bashing". Anti-immigrant violence has been reported in the US
regularly since that time, and the terms "Paki" and "Paki-bashing"
are not as obscure as Bush's erstwhile defenders suggest.
Especially if among any of the president's staff can be counted
even one careful reader of the New York Times or anyone who listens
to or reads the public remarks of VP Cheney, who referred to
Pakistanis as -- in an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press
on 16 September -- "Paks". The Times ran in response two William
Safire columns and an editorial "chiding", as Safire put it, Cheney
for such usage and instructing accurately on the use of "Pak" and
"Paki" as insulting racial slurs. And, while Bush can hardly be
faulted for paying little attention to his VP, Safire clearly and,
to the point, recently made it abundantly clear, for whomever in
Bush's administration was listening, that "Paki" is
unacceptable. Now Bush may not be faulted for not reading the New
York Times; he has, as they say, people to do that for him. But the
very recently discussion of this issue in the Times clearly
establishes the bounds of acceptable usage of such terms, which is
to say, using these terms is unacceptable.
But, second, the ignorance or obscurity defense, even if sound, is
irrelevant. In diplomacy and politics, as under the law, ignorance
is not an absolute defense. Sometimes it's no defense at all. The
question is neither whether most -- or, strictly speaking, any;
not, of course, including the millions of Pakistani American
citizens, about whom more below -- Americans know that "Paki" is a
racist slur, nor is it whether Bush knew that "Paki" is a racist
slur. The only relevant question is whether Bush should have known
that "Paki" is a racist slur, and, further, whether, having known
it, such knowledge would have prevented him from using it.
As to the first question, yes, Bush should have known, assuming he
did not, that "Paki" is a racist slur. The dictates of diplomacy
alone, to say nothing of moral decency, suggest he should have
known, as, for example, every president who dealt with -- the not
particularly analogous, geopolitically -- situation of South
African apartheid knew that, whatever their true views of Mandela
or the ANC, the word "kafir" was a racist slur and was to be
avoided at all costs.
One might hope, as well, that the person who occupies the office of
US president, whatever else his flaws and failings, would take
advantage of the incalculable resources such an office offers to
familiarize himself with the known locations of the neighborhood's
mines and minefields. Are we really to believe that this is Bush's
very first time, ever, to use this word? Has anyone on his staff
warned against its use in the months since September 11? It is not,
after all, a particularly ready contraction of "Pakistani", nor is
it the kind of thing that one hears used normatively -- that is,
its context of use in US media are almost always precisely as
racist slur -- often in US media. Is it something that the Bush
circle uses privately? If so, that some or no Americans know if it
as such is not at all to the point.
A White House spokesperson responded to Bush's comments by offering
further comment -- "The president has great respect for Pakistan,
the Pakistani people, and the Pakistani culture. Pakistan has been
a strong member of the international coalition in the war against
terrorism" -- which only sought to evade the issue, which said much
less than was required by the bounds of minimal decency, and which
conspicuously failed to apologize -- Compare: when Bush
indecorously called the US campaign against bin Laden a "crusade"
the White House apologized swiftly and with good reason -- or
withdraw the slur.
Whatever else one might say about Bush, it is conceivable that his
use of "Paki" was merely a verbal slip, the result of being briefed
to never say "Paki" (though the lack of an immediate correction
from Bush tends to weigh against it having been a pure slip). Those
of us who inhabit fogs of personal expression do make such
mistakes. What is truly objectionable, however, is that decent
people, having made such mistakes, apologize and offer to make
amends, to remedy harms caused, to do, in short, what, if anything,
may be done to reassert and reaffirm publicly the dignity and worth
of those who have been wronged.
Bush has done and will be doing none of these -- and very
conspicuously so. Thus there are only three possibilities:
First, Bush used the term knowingly and premeditatedly, that is, he
knew the term is a racist slur, and he meant to use it as a racist
slur; in which case, he is not only a racist but dangerously
unhinged.
Second, Bush used the term accidentally; that is, he knew that it
is a racist slur and its use was a verbal or mental slip. Such
things happen, alas. However much we might wish to have a president
more in control of the modes of his personal expression, there are
greater sins. If this is the case, however, one might assume -- if
for no other reason than for the sakes of American citizens and
residents who are of Pakistani origin -- that Bush would have
apologized, whether tersely or profusely, whether immediately or
subsequently, whether directly or by proxy. The lack of any mode of
redress speaks louder than apologists and defenders of Bush's use
of the term realize.
Third, Bush used it purposively but did not know, consciously, that
it was a racist slur; in which case, his ignorance is either
defensible or it is not. I find it hard to believe that his
ignorance is defensible, but, in either case, if the term was used
innocently of racist intent, I am equally hard pressed to
understand why Bush has not apologized and sought to redress the
harms he's done.
In the present US climate the plight of those of South Asian or
Middle Eastern origin (or stereotypical appearance) is fragile at
best. In addition to facing whatever real dangers the rest of us
face, whether from terrorists or from our own government's
contortions, these persons face further threats and dangers of
person, including affronts to and assaults upon their basic dignity
and respect. That Bush has -- intentionally or no -- made life more
difficult for them, and that he's done so without the slightest
interest in or attempt at redress, is simply intolerable.
###
Bush's Racist Slur
http://monkeyfist.com/articles/804
© Copyright 1999-2001 The Monkeyfist Collective